It was supposed to take just an hour, but wound up taking the whole day due to political maneuvering to kill the measure, but in the end House GOP leadership passed an agriculture-program-only Farm Bill yesterday by a narrow 216-208 vote.  No Democrat voted for the bill, as the minority invoked procedural after procedural vote to delay the measure and allow them to speak against it.  Sixteen Republicans voted against the bill, a far cry from the 62 who voted "nay" on the conventional Farm Bill three weeks ago.  

The strategy of splitting the House Agriculture Committee-approved Farm Bill into a farm program-only bill and one reauthorizing federal food stamp, nutrition and feeding programs was a highly controversial and risky political gamble for House leaders. The move pitted traditional ag interests opposed to the move - committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) actively spoke against the bill on the floor - against those who saw it as the only way to get a Farm Bill to conference with the Senate.  The move also guts the estimated savings in the bill, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reporting this week the bill as passed by the House represents about $13 billion in savings over 10 years, compared to nearly $40 billion in the committee-approved bill.  

Pledging to work with anyone, any time, House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R, OK), called passage a "huge step forward" in getting the bill to conference with the Senate.  Peterson said after the vote, "The House majority's decision to ignore the will of more than 500 organizations with a stake in the farm bill, setting the stage for draconian cuts to nutrition programs and eliminating future farm bills altogether would be laughable if it weren't true."

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), displeased with the House action, released a statement, saying, "The bill passed by the House today is not a real Farm Bill, and is an insult to rural America, which is why it's strongly opposed by more than 500 farm, food and conservation groups."  She said it's obvious the Senate Farm Bill will be the base bill for conference committee action.  

The bill approved yesterday took the ag committee-passed Farm Bill, generally as amended on the House floor three weeks ago, removed Title IV, the nutrition section, and added a section repealing 1949's so-called "permanent law." It's these farm laws passed in the 1930s and 1940s - setting archaic supports for just a few commodities and requiring reauthorizing a Farm Bill every five years - which make up the fall back should a new Farm Bill not be enacted.  The 2013 bill replaces 1949, and requires "permanent" law be updated every five years.  No other amendments were permitted.

Ag Opposed the Split--Farm and crop production groups generally supported keeping the two sections of the bill in one legislative package. A letter supporting this approach from over 530 state, regional and national groups went to House leadership last week.  However, nearly all groups were careful not to actively oppose the ag-only bill, but several expressed concern about repealing 1949 permanent law and replacing it with the 2013 farm program language - particularly if they disagree with commodity program rewrites - without committee discussion or floor debate. By making the 2013 version "permanent" law, commodity programs continue if Congress never writes another Farm Bill.   

However, this provision is likely not going to survive in conference, insiders said, and critics contend it will make writing future farm bills tougher. Lucas grudgingly agreed to the floor strategy earlier this week, but his public statements make it clear his goal was to try anything that got his committee's bill into conference with the Senate's approved bill, where critics argue the nutrition title could be reattached to the conference report.   

House Democrats fighting to save the food stamp program denounced the strategy, taking to the floor throughout the day and accusing Republicans of taking food away from children. They fear a stand-alone nutrition bill may never appear or that deeper spending cuts would be demanded on the House floor.  Outside groups who strongly opposed the Farm Bill defeated last month, declared their opposition to an ag-only bill claiming it does not cut USDA spending enough, particularly in the crop insurance title.  Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also said he wants to see the Farm Bill contain both ag and nutrition programs, even though President Obama threatened a veto of the bill approved by the full committee and the revised package.

The Senate Agriculture Committee this week held a 90-minute hearing on the food safety, national security, export competition and technology implications of the proposed $7.1-billion purchase of Smithfield Foods by Shuanghui International. No committee member led cheers for the proposed acquisition - and most expressed at least some concerns - but when the dust settled there was no committee consensus on whether the deal was good or bad for U.S. pork production, the economy overall or U.S.-China relations.

Witnesses at the July 10, hearing were Larry Pope, Smithfield president and CEO; Daniel Slane, commissioner, U.S. Chamber of Commerce U.S.-China Security Review Commission; Dr. Matthew Slaughter, associate dean and professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, and Dr. Usha Haley, professor and director of the Robbins Center for Global Business & Strategy, West Virginia University.

Pope was low-key but emphatic in his defense and explanation of the proposed purchase of Smithfield. He emphasized no negative impacts on U.S. pork safety and described the deal as "the same old Smithfield, only better."  He used many of the public talking points the company has rolled out over the last few weeks.  He said he'd heard no opposition to the deal from any major producer in the pork industry, and stressed the "overwhelming" support for the Smithfield purchase as the industry saw it increasing pork production and exports overall.  Slaughter also strongly supported the deal, minimizing concerns over food safety and last export markets, while Slane and Haley issued warnings the deal signaled the first of many such moves into the U.S. food industry by Chinese companies, that Shuanghui was strongly and directly influenced by the Chinese government and that Smithfield's U.S. competitors would suffer as the Chinese moved to corner the global pork market.

Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), a leading critic of the Smithfield-Shuanghui deal, expressed concerns about Chinese government interference, future exports of Chinese pork to the U.S., lost U.S. export markets, and Chinese access to tax dollar-supported technologies enjoyed by the domestic pork industry. As part of her closing statement, she indicated the committee would immediately adjourn to a meeting with Department of Treasury representatives involved in the national security review of the Smithfield-Shuanghui deal.

Committee members either minimized the concerns or echoed the critics of the Smithfield-Shuanghui deal. Sen. Mike Johanns (R, NE) made it clear there was little the ag committee or the federal government could do to stop the Shuanghui acquisition under current law.  Two points of agreement did emerge: First, Senators were uncomfortable that a Chinese company could legally buy a U.S. firm, but a U.S. firm couldn't buy a Chinese company, and they wanted additional assurance that was good for Smithfield in the short term was good for the country in the long term.

Slane said the deal is "all about control" sought by China, access to intellectual property and the eventual move by China to take over U.S pork markets overseas.  Haley, whose center studies the implications of foreign investment in the U.S., said "I don't think Shuanghui is buying Smithfield for its pork. China is not seeing this as one acquisition; China sees this as a foot in the door."  She went on to say acquisition of intellectual property and the reputation of the Smithfield brand will go far in calming domestic customer problems over food safety, whether real or perceived. 

Boxer Wants Governors, EPA to Develop Stronger Regs on Ammonium Nitrate

Any EPA regulation costing industry more than $1 billion and negatively impacting the economy would be prohibited under a bill approved this week by the House Energy & Commerce Committee's subcommittee on energy and power subcommittee.  

The subcommittee chair Rep. Edward Whitfield (D, KY) said the bill requires the Secretary of Energy to review any EPA proposal for impact on consumer energy prices, energy supplies and reliance on foreign energy sources, and to consult with the administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor on adverse economic impact of EPA proposed rules. Whitfield called these requirements necessary to curb EPA overregulation.

The committee rejected an amendment that would have required the energy secretary to also evaluate the positive impacts of any proposed EPA rule, even after Rep. Joe Barton (R, TX) said the subcommittee should accept the amendment and work on language improvements.

A July 18 hearing in the Senate Environment & Public Works on "Climate Change: It's Happening Now" will not include Administration witnesses says panel Chair Barbara Boxer (D, CA), and that decision has drawn criticism from committee Republicans.   

Committee ranking member Sen. David Vitter (R, LA) told Boxer in a letter he wants her to reverse her decision to keep government witnesses off the hearing witness list.  Citing President Obama's Administration climate change initiative, Vitter said, "Because of the significant interest in and the impacts of these (Obama plan) actions, we request you reconsider your decision to exclude the participation of government witnesses."

"An Administration taking such sweeping actions on climate change should be ready to defend those actions...we are certain the President would accommodate a request to have his officials represent what he so proudly touts as being good for America."  Vitter wants to question Administration officials on the "scope, purpose and consequences of such unilateral action."

NPPC, AFBF Sue EPA to Stop Farmer Personal Data Release